A note about "numbers"...

[JPaul]

It's just another example of received wisdom methinks.

It's amazing how much people take on face value and it eventually becomes "fact".

3 Great examples are that the coriolis effect makes the water go down the toilet in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere, that the rain forests produce most of out oxygen and that gullible is a real word. A lot of people take these things to be true, when in fact they are fallacious.

Numbers are quoted and re-quoted until they become facts. To such an extent that people are totally convinced of their accuracy.

[GepperRankins]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/#total


more than wild guesses

[GepperRankins]

something critical

none of those either


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/details/x073_guide.htm

[JPaul]

The website is run be Hamit Dardagan.

Some of his other work http://www.counterpunch.org/dardargan0813.html

[lynx]

Repeatedly saying that someone who produces a count is not bias-free does not make their figures wrong either.

You've intimated that coalition forces know what the true figures are, but I don't see any publication of them. Why not? "The press won't believe them" simply won't wash.

[lynx]

The website is run be Hamit Dardagan.

Some of his other work http://www.counterpunch.org/dardargan0813.html

I like that.

It provoked a thought.

If the resultant casualties from this intensive bombong are so light, then what is the point of it? It seems rather wasteful to me. The US people should be complaining about this needless waste of their tax dollars. There's something you should really get your teeth into, J2.

[JPaul]

Repeatedly saying that someone who produces a count is not bias-free does not make their figures wrong either.

True, surely it is the job of the person producing any figure to provide some povenance for it. Rather than for others to disprove it.

Like they say 97% of statistics are made-up.

(To any scousers, I don't mean they are really pleased)

[JPaul]

The website is run be Hamit Dardagan.

Some of his other work http://www.counterpunch.org/dardargan0813.html

If the resultant casualties from this intensive bombong are so light,

Blow them up and get them stoned, kewl.

[GepperRankins]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/#total


more than wild guesses

Certainly, Dave.

All the data is, in fact, "independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication."

Now, if that isn't a solid indicator that the info is "bias-free", I don't know what is.

each report cites at least 2 sources, so you could check yourself if you wanted.

[JPaul]

each report cites at least 2 sources, so you could check yourself if you wanted.

You can't get accurate figures without counting the bodies yourself, Dave.

Well strictly speaking you can, it's just very difficult to demonstrate that they are accurate.

I can make an absolute guess about pretty much anything you want. It might be accurate, it might not.